Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/10/21
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]"Stewart, Alistair" wrote: >Swatch (more accurate and reliable than a Rolex - >under normal broad operating conditions and environment.) That is a ridiculous statement. How do you define "normal broad operating conditions and environment"? In a glass case perhaps? I've owned a number of Swatch's, the straps rot on my wrist (perhaps my sweat is overly acidic?) the battery cap retaining lugs break and the bezel's crack easily, at which point they cease to be reliable or accurate at all. Not forgetting the finite life of the battery's. For 30 bucks they are a great DISPOSABLE watch. Break one buy another. My Rolex soldiers on, gaining a minute or two per month and I expect it will outlast me. It does not require batteries and has never been serviced. I am rather heavy on watches but the Rolex resists all my attempts to destroy it. To cite an extreme environment:- Rannulph Fiennes the explorer and his companion relied heavily on their watches during a failed attempt to walk unaided across the Antarctic, their Sat Nav equipment was unreliable due to failing batteries in the bitter cold. Sir Rannulph was wearing a Rolex, his companion - a battery operated watch. Needless to say the battery operated watch gave up the ghost half way thro the journey. They where left to rely on the Rolex for their navigation to safety. Fortunate for them they were not both wearing Swatch's. If the technology had been available at the time and my IIIC/F were made from plastic in 1950 I wonder if it would still be going strong. If it relied on batteries would the necessary battery still be available? Plastics, while not easily biodegradable, do deteriorate; plastics do not wear well, they wear out; plastics are not easily repaired; plastics remain, for the most part, a cheap and disposable alternative to metals. I am referring here to the types of plastic generally encountered in consumer products, not rare exotic polymers, harder than titanium, unaffected by temperature and less reactive than gold, if such exist. B D Colen wrote: >I owned a Submariner a number of years ago and finally sold >it - because on my wrist it simply wouldn't keep as accurate >time as a quartz Timex....go figure... If you really need precision to the second you could always buy a quartz Rolex, but who'd want one? Rolex mechanical watches retain their resale value rather well. I could sell mine now, bought new ten years ago, for more than I paid for it, even allowing for inflation. The exception to this is the quartz models, nobody wants them! Go figure........ "Stewart, Alistair" wrote: >My various quartz-controlled timepieces keep very accurate time, have less >service outage time (i.e. replacing a battery is quicker than getting my GMT >serviced), don't stop when dropped (yes folks, Rolexes do), and are better >warrantied than brand R. I can only say you must have been unlucky Alistair. I have two Oyster Perpetual Datejusts, the one I'm wearing now has been dropped a number of times and bears the dents and scars including a number of chips in the mineral crystal glass, its been bashed on rock faces and it has survived bike crashes, it has never failed me. I admit, its never been to the Arctic tho. Jason Hall